The statement of the defendant herein was completely spontaneous and was not in response to any interrogation . . . . " See also Priddy v. State, 55 Wis.2d 312, 314, 198 N.W.2d 624 (1972). The statements were not the results of a prior interrogation.
This court has, in several cases, permitted the admission of spontaneous "remarks or outbursts" made in the presence of the police but prior to arrest. For example, in Priddy v. State, 55 Wis.2d 312, 198 N.W.2d 624 (1972) the police came upon a car which had been reported as stolen. The defendant was occupying the car when the police confronted him with that fact through the use of a bullhorn.
We agree with this determination of the trial court. This court has held that, unless contrary to the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence, the findings of voluntariness made pursuant to a Goodchild hearing will be sustained on appeal. State v. Estrada (1974), 63 Wis.2d 476, 217 N.W.2d 359; Priddy v. State (1972), 55 Wis.2d 312, 314, 198 N.W.2d 624; McClellan v. State (1972), 53 Wis.2d 724, 728, 193 N.W.2d 711; Sharlow v. State (1970), 47 Wis.2d 259, 177 N.W.2d 88. Defendant's second argument is that the statement was inadmissible because the defendant was held in custody during an exorbitant period of time prior to his making the statement.
¶ 18 Bolstad next argues that the frisk prior to the questioning weighs in favor of a finding that he was in custody. Bolstad cites Priddy v. State, 55 Wis.2d 312, 198 N.W.2d 624 (1972), in support of this assertion but fails to demonstrate how this case supports his argument. The State concedes that Bolstad was frisked, but maintains that the frisk occurred following “an illegal shooting of the deer decoy just minutes before the traffic stop,” and therefore the frisk was reasonable to protect the wardens' safety.
¶ 18 Bolstad next argues that the frisk prior to the questioning weighs in favor of a finding that he was in custody. Bolstad cites Priddy v. State, 55 Wis.2d 312, 198 N.W.2d 624 (1972), in support of this assertion but fails to demonstrate how this case supports his argument. The State concedes that Bolstad was frisked, but maintains that the frisk occurred following “an illegal shooting of the deer decoy just minutes before the traffic stop,” and therefore the frisk was reasonable to protect the wardens' safety.